|
Lou,
Yes, I mean "newly defined behavior" of LMP. I will
look at what will be the changes in RFC4204.
BTW, I have uploaded the 05 version of this
draft.
Regards,
Dan
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Tuesday, May 26, 2009 9:09 AM
Subject: Re: Working group last call:
draft-ietf-ccamp-confirm-data-channel-status-02
Dan,
I assume that you mean "newly defined behavior" rather
than "newly
defined messages" in refereing to negotiating the use of
the future
4204 modifications.
With respect to the bis, I
think just getting the desired / needed
changes documented would be a
great step forward. Once we understand
the scope of the changes, we
can decide if the extra work needed to do a
full bis is
warranted.
Thank you for offering to take on this work as it is clearly
needed.
Lou
On 5/25/2009 3:10 AM, Dan Li wrote:
> If you
feel so inclined, something that is also worthwhile (possibly
> even as
an alternative) is to author an update to 4204 that specifies
> behavior
for handling unknown messages and allowing multiple config
>
messages. - This would be a worthwhile document no matter what you
decide.
> [dan] Yes, RFC4204 should be updated to specify the
unknown
> message behavior, and CONFIG message can be used to
negotiate
> the usage of the newly defined messages. Should we work
on
> RFC4204bis?
>
> Lou
|